I was merely pointing out that I personally have no way of knowing for certain that it did happen because i was not there, just as i was not at the ressurection but i believe in both on the authority of historians and on the catholic church respectivly, interesting that you should mark out the exact same reasons for believing the hollocuast happened as to what the catholic church says about Christs life.... it is well documented, there were witnesses...

Lux, don't be stupid please!

You say you have no mean of knowing it because you were not there. But you have proofs and witnesses. Our whole justice system is based on witnesses & evidences. So, by saying that, you're like a judge having witnesses and proofs of a murder but who would say "I wasn't there, I cannot be sure". Yes he can be sure, by using his logic and making deductions from prrofs, eveidence and witnesses reports.

So, I think we have about Jesus similar witnesses and evidences than for the hollocaust. Jesus life traces can be found in some writtings of Flavius Josephus (a non christian).

So I have no problem to admit that Jesus existed, that he lived & died +/- 2000 years ago. That's not the point.

The point is that we don't have any eveidence of his resurection. We have only "witnesses" which are more than partial !

Using an other comparison, I would say I have no doubt about the existence of Amenothep II, the pharaoh. But I doubt he's the incarnation of Horus (or any God).

I accept it on the authority of the Catholic Church, we take a lot on authority we believe the hollocaust happened on authority of historians etc.

Well yeah, it was just god's chosen group of people who was mass murdered, but hey? I only take it in authority because my other masters say to do so. And if they say it didn't happen, who cares, I wasn't there?

Kinda weird actually, we as satanists the preferred outlaws of christianity do feel sorry what happened in the holocaust with "god's chosen group of people". But the christians only take it in authority 'cause the pope told so.Any logic here?

"Well, comparing a priest to a qualified historian who has actually done his homework is a little naive, don'tcha think?"

I am not comparing them at all, they both belong to different feilds, I would not trust a historian regarding matters of faith, just as I would not trust a priest in matters of history (unless he has trained in that field)

"It wasn't distress per se; more anger than anything."

I did not want to anger you either, sorry about that.

"Jesus Christ the public speaker may well have existed, but it's yet to be fully proven if he's the actual Son of God or not."

No argument from me, except to say it is more than likely he existed.

"Just another question lux. The three colors portrayed in your pic, was that unintentional?"Yes, why?

"Let's not forget that fact that we have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, ie, pictures, survivors, concentration camps and gas chambers, the attic in which Anne Frank and her family hid for years"

Very easily produced. Pictures can be manipulated, people can be "paid" buildings can be built. Really we are basing our belief the nazi holocaust happened on the authority of people we trust.

"compared to a text that was written, edited, and added to, by hundreds of priests and monks and what not over several hundred years, most of whom never even saw Christ. There is just no comparison between the two "histories". We dont know that monks edited or added to the bible, you are assuming. we know that the canon of NT was changed but not specific texts. But this "developing" of the inspired books of the NT were done under the guidance of the Pope. A "office" I trust, just as I trust certain teachers of history."You can't really compare the two. We have photos of gas chambers and rotting piles of corpses, transcripts of concentration camp executions, millions of eyewitness accounts"

Photos can be "doctored" any way what really does a photograph of a starving man really prove, there are many corpses rotting today, you will be one yourself eventually, does that mean I can conclude you died in a holocaust...many could have been dug up and placed in mass graves. transcriptes and documents can be forged, how many of these millions of people have you actually met and know are worthy of trust.... to take anything we have not got first hand experience of is to take that on the authority of someone or something you trust."Well yeah, it was just god's chosen group of people who was mass murdered"

and their murderers defeated!

"But the christians only take it in authority 'cause the pope told so.Any logic here? "

you have the whole argument in a complete mess, I belive the holocuast happened on the authority of historians, I believe Jesus was the son of God on the authority of the Catholic Church.

Ok... Lux... there is a difference between historical skepticism and outright irrational suspicion of reality.

Technically your entire life and sense of reality could be a lie carefully constructed by the Evil Genius, but going down that road is tiresome and fruitless. It's not practical.

The Church does pride itself on scholarship, which I do admire, but when it comes to matters of the historicity of the gospels (ESPECIALLY when concerning miracles and such), they are no better off than other historians.

The Catholic Church, as a direct linear organization (not in the abstract theological sense), did not exist until long after Christ's death, so the Church cannot prove that Jesus was divine. All they are capable of doing is propagating their ideas about what the Gospels mean for humanity.

That said, this is how one views Christianity as merely a set of ideas, not some ultimate reality.

"The Catholic Church, as a direct linear organization (not in the abstract theological sense), did not exist until long after Christ's death, so the Church cannot prove that Jesus was divine. All they are capable of doing is propagating their ideas about what the Gospels mean for humanity."

The Catholic Church as most people refer to it or "The Church" as it refers to itself has apostolic succession back to St Peter himself, and thus to Christ. The Church was radically different in its infancy than it is today, it was the "smallest of all the seeds, but today it is a giant tree and all the birds of the air come to rest in its branches". But even though a man grows and he changes he remains the same man, The Church came into existance under Jesus Christ, it was borne to the world at pentecost in AD 33

The oldest scriptures date a couple of hundreds years after Jesus supposed to die and a lot of the writing is probably never written by the ones considered as the authors. They are filled with errors indicating that the writers likely had no clue about the reality they were writing about. Considering them as a historic account on a certain period in time is the same as considering Harry Potter as a scientific account on the truth about magic.

There is nothing wrong with believing in the philosophy of christianity although in my opinion it's a damn waste, but there is a huge difference between accepting its philosophical part and accepting the historic value of it. And if you consider the bible as the true word of god, you can't pick what you like, you either embrace it as a whole or question everything in it. You can't say page 46 to 58 is true and the rest is a myth. Either it is gods word and it is true or it is man's writing and it is questionable.

Did the church start in 33? I don't think so. The church started the day one man realized he could benefit of the hope and fear of another and that was way before 33.

Very easily produced. Pictures can be manipulated, people can be "paid" buildings can be built. Really we are basing our belief the nazi holocaust happened on the authority of people we trust.

First of all, pictures from that time can't be fake. Just for the reason there was no photoshop in that time. And I also don't believe the germans paid millions of people to lie. There was an economic crisis back then. And even so if the photo's were faked. How come we up here in belgium have so much evidence of people who died? Or that the holocaust was a fact?

For someone with a nickname like that you sure aren't bright lighted...

Originally Posted By: lux

We dont know that monks edited or added to the bible, you are assuming. we know that the canon of NT was changed but not specific texts. But this "developing" of the inspired books of the NT were done under the guidance of the Pope. A "office" I trust, just as I trust certain teachers of history.

I don't know about you, but I have held several bibles and I always found some things had changed. A bible written in 1940 is totally different then a bible from 1970 and on his turn totally different from a new bible. Don't get me wrong, most stories stay the same. But it is just those lines most christians use who change a bit. Just to stay "modern" and to convince people they are the real deal.

Originally Posted By: lux

and their murderers defeated!

You know... they were almost extinced. If Hitler didn't attack the whole world I think god's chosen group of people was wiped out entirely. Or at least, a couple of hundred would maybe have survived. And not to be anti-semitical but; the jews really were a factor there was an economic crisis in Germany. In 1933 they wanted a boycot against all german products. Because of the fact: fascism was against kapitalism and communism. These 2 political ideas were a good way for them to get much power and money. Fascism wasn't. They would loose power and controle.

But maybe my mind is a bit wandering of, and am I talking bovine excrement. I must admit the last couple of weeks I've been too tired to think phylosophical or clear. So maybe to the admins and mods here. If you start noticing I'm acting a bit weird or am flaming people, feel free to put some censorship on or maybe delete the reaction. Or to say I must hold my breath a bit.

We dont know that monks edited or added to the bible, you are assuming.

I don't think anyone is just assuming when making that claim.

Monks manually copied most books during some ages and it is known from some books (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews) that someone added desired passages in it. At the same time it has been subject to mistranslation and let us not forget the biggest editing of it all; the decision to allow only those works that fit the desired package. Not all testaments are included in the bible.

One can be pretty sure the bible, old and new part, have been subject to severe editing.

Actually I will have to note that photos could have been faked back then... look at Stalin's regime. The Soviets were masters of shooping the woop. They did a pretty nice job of editing out "purged" individuals in photographs.

But there is a difference between silently revising minuscule personal details (which even THIS is difficult, as other evidence eventually was brought to light and disproved the Soviet "edits")... and pulling off something like a fake massive genocide in modern Europe.

They would have to keep the mouths of everyone involved (victims, nazi officers, collaborators, civilians) consistent with the alleged lie, which would be IMPOSSIBLE. If even Stalin's propagandist masterminds couldn't suppress something as minor as the secret that their leader had stunted growth in his left arm, how on earth could anyone possibly hope to pull off a fake Holocaust and fool everyone for so long?

Therefore, we have more direct evidence than simply the word of historians. It happened only 50 years ago, so it's not like the Holocaust is some ancient enigma shrouded in mystery.

The Catholic Church as most people refer to it or "The Church" as it refers to itself has apostolic succession back to St Peter himself, and thus to Christ.

...and this is where it gets less clear. Other denominations claim that they are the "true" Church because they split off from the Catholic Church, which allegedly goes back to Peter. Therefore any group who believes that they are practicing the true word of Christ (eg, EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN GROUP ON THE PLANET) can claim Apostolic Succession, even if it means invoking a "spiritual" succession.

Also, even if the Church did have direct lineage back to Saint Peter, that still wouldn't change the fact that the gospels could still be false in the first place. The Church is a group of mortal individuals taking up the banner of those before them, not some timeless immortal paradigm.

History is difficult to manipulate because so many different people record it. If a person or country decides to revise history, it will contradict all the other evidence and thus be harder to pass off as genuine.

Religious scripture, however, is much easier to manipulate because originally it was in the hands of only a few people. And the events that the scripture claims are true (such as miracles) are almost impossible to verify historically.

Also, many early Christian gospels were discovered to be outright frauds. Who is to say that some of the more believable frauds didn't worm their way into the Christian canon?

There are a lot of factors, i believe in the philosophy, i understand the importance of the concept of a God in keeping Christianity a viable social ideal as opposed to its nearest philosophy that really couldnt sustain a "government as God" ideal...i.e Communism. The fact that the Catholic Church is my family and I would stick by it even if it were all lies. Hope for eternal life, a spiritual "6th" sense within, spiritual experiences, seeing what appears to me to be a common designer in creation...i.e all living creatures to an extent share some DNA simularities.

“The oldest scriptures date a couple of hundreds years after Jesus supposed to die and a lot of the writing is probably never written by the ones considered as the authors”

The oldest scriptures were wrote 1500 years of years before Christ (book of job).

The oldest book in the NT is the Epistle of James completed circa AD45 only 12 years after the ressurection of JC in AD33, the youngest book in the NT was wrote by the apostle John, its called “revelations” this was completed in AD95 only 62years after the out pouring of the holy spirt in AD33.

“They are filled with errors indicating that the writers likely had no clue about the reality they were writing about. Considering them as a historic account on a certain period in time is the same as considering Harry Potter as a scientific account on the truth about magic.”

“errors” like what?

Archeologists (a certain type of historian) have used the bible to discover Sodom and gommorah and have determined that a great flood did occur in that part of the world around the same time noah is recorded .

“if you consider the bible as the true word of god, you can't pick what you like, you either embrace it as a whole or question everything in it”

Something can be true without being factual, fact is only an earthly understanding of truth but truth is something beyond fact in that not every truth can be determined by fact. Biblical truth pertains to something beyond ourselves our world our universe, “fact” can not prove such things. Now it is easy to say Jesus literally existed, but can we say the same about adam and eve, considering the scientific pressure regarding evolution ( I do not oppose evolution, I think it only shows how creative god is) but in the genesis account of Adam and eve we hear that God made Adam (the forefather of all humans) from the dust of the earth… i.e he was made in a natural process through supernatural will. Biblical Truth is not always litteral.

“First of all, pictures from that time can't be fake. Just for the reason there was no photoshop in that time.”

No of course not, how naïve of me.

“I also don't believe the germans paid millions of people to lie”

I am not saying they did, I am saying it is a possibility and what would the Germans have to gain by paying people to lie?

How about the Americans, British, Jews what would they gain.

But for a group of people who supposedly should not accept anything as absolute fact (I use fact instead of truth, since you all seem to equate the two, since your confined to reality) because accepting one falsehood leads to an ever increasing acceptance of falsehood based on that one absolute fact.

Do you really know that the holocaust happened?

“don't know about you, but I have held several bibles and I always found some things had changed. A bible written in 1940 is totally different then a bible from 1970 and on his turn totally different from a new bible. Don't get me wrong, most stories stay the same. But it is just those lines most christians use who change a bit. Just to stay "modern" and to convince people they are the real deal.“

If your picking up protestant/state run churches bibles I am not supprised, the King James Version is so perverse I would recommend it to you lot as your bible. You have to remember the protestant churches were setup to destroy Catholicism, and most states today want Christianity destroyed. The catholic bible has not changed it retains around 98% integrity of the original greek since they all need vatican approval before going to print. but obviously some word play is lost from the original greek, often times yes, different words appear in different time periods but convey the same meaning. For example “thou shalt not murder” becomes today “you shall not murder”

“Monks manually copied most books during some ages and it is known from some books (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews) that someone added desired passages in it.”

Yes one particularly famous monk did and a few words “faith alone” and he also removed whole chapters and books, he was a German Monk, called Martin Luther he was kicked out of the church, he nailed what is refered to his “95 Thesis” to the door of the church and thus began the reformation. The printing press and not the monks can be blamed for the many variations of the bible today, but take a fools advice, if you want a one that is at least 95 -98% accurate to the original then go for a catholic approved bible, such as the New Jeruselem bible.

“Not all testaments are included in the bible.”

Are you on about different goseples, perhaps the shepherd of hermes, the apocalypse of our lady, things like that?

“fascism was against kapitalism and communism. These 2 political ideas were a good way for them to get much power and money. Fascism wasn't”

Fascism was defeated and the cold war between communism and capitalism began, the Eastern European “Jews” (not Hebrews) got rich, the whole world is under there manipulation, what better way to protect yourself than to frighten the world to speak out against the “jews” for fear of being tarred with the same brush as Hitler.. motive enough to fabricate a holocaust?

"...and this is where it gets less clear. Other denominations claim that they are the "true" Church because they split off from the Catholic Church, which allegedly goes back to Peter. Therefore any group who believes that they are practicing the true word of Christ (eg, EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN GROUP ON THE PLANET) can claim Apostolic Succession, even if it means invoking a "spiritual" succession."

Ah but you see, they are still part of the Catholic Church all be it dysfunctionally but when they speak in accordance with the teaching of the (catholic) Chruch then they do speak for the "true" church. But there are no protestant churches who's succesion has remained because of excomunication the apostolic succesion ends.

"Also, even if the Church did have direct lineage back to Saint Peter, that still wouldn't change the fact that the gospels could still be false in the first place. The Church is a group of mortal individuals taking up the banner of those before them, not some timeless immortal paradigm."

Yes of course, no argument from me, often i have sat and considered if these "men" were just some hoodwinkers, but i dont think men would suffer and get executed like what they did for a Scam.

Now I come to the conclusion that these men perhaps even Jesus really believed in the philosophy and realised the importance of the divine element or that they believed in both in the philosophy and in Jesus being the son of God.

Also, many early Christian gospels were discovered to be outright frauds. Who is to say that some of the more believable frauds didn't worm their way into the Christian canon?"

Frauds, you mean the gnostic gosples, what is to say they are not the real ones?

The Catholic Church that is what is to say

I am not what is known as a "bible believing" Christian, that is i do not hold the bible up as my single rule of faith, the bible by itself is nothing more than a bunch of writings, my rule of faith is in the bible but only because it is verified by those who wrote and determined the books there in..i.e the Church.

As St Augustine said... i would put no faith in the Gospels if not for the Authority of the Catholic Church.

So... you have faith in the gospels because of the authority of the church, and you get your faith in the authority of the church from the gospels... isn't that a bit circular?

Yes of course, no argument from me, often i have sat and considered if these "men" were just some hoodwinkers, but i dont think men would suffer and get executed like what they did for a Scam.

I don't think that the founders of Christianity were outright con-men... they were obviously very devoted to their beliefs, even if I think those beliefs were misplaced. Look at the zeal behind Islam, for example.

As for the Gnostic Gospels, I was not specifically referring to them. Gnostics were mostly not concerned over whether or not their texts were "genuine" or not; it was the philosophy behind them that mattered. Gnosticism was drawn largely from abstraction, and was indeed more of a philosophical movement than an actual "religion". And the Gnostic gospels were not so much fraudulent as they were heretical- they went against Catholic dogma, which was the main reason many early church fathers rejected them. I was referring to lesser-known works that had things like after-the-fact prophecies and falsified authorships.

Also, there is also no imperative that it is all divinely inspired. Most of the gospels, to me, are purely philosophical discourse (or ravings of a madman, if you want to include Revelations)

As St Augustine said... i would put no faith in the Gospels if not for the Authority of the Catholic Church. ...(and earlier)The fact that the Catholic Church is my family and I would stick by it even if it were all lies.

There are a lot of factors, i believe in the philosophy, i understand the importance of the concept of a God in keeping Christianity a viable social ideal as opposed to its nearest philosophy that really couldnt sustain a "government as God" ideal...i.e Communism. The fact that the Catholic Church is my family and I would stick by it even if it were all lies. Hope for eternal life, a spiritual "6th" sense within, spiritual experiences, seeing what appears to me to be a common designer in creation...i.e all living creatures to an extent share some DNA simularities.

So tell me, what are you doing here then? If you stick to it no matter what, you aren't exactly debating your religion are you? Seems you open up yourself only to debate the wrongs of others. Is all this just to affirm you are right or is there some faint hope of helping anyone of us on the right path?

Either way, I drop replying, it's not worth the time pointing out the errors, I can better try to teach a monkey play the piano.